P.M.Sajeev vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 7143 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:

    1       P.M.SAJEEV
            AGED 53 YEARS
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    2       P.A.VIJAYAKUMAR
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    3       P.R.PRASAD
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    4       P.K.SANTHAKUMARI
            VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    5       P.R.BHARATHAN
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    6       P.R.SUNANDA
            VADAKKOOT HOUSE,
            CHEROOR PO, TRICHUT -8

    7       P.M.ANOOP KUMAR
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    8       SMT.DEVAYANI
            W/O.ACHUTHAN, POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    9       P.K.SUBRAMANIAN
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8

    10      P.M.VISWAMBHARAN
            POOSSERY HOUSE,
            CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
 WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
                                   2


    11    P.A.KAUSALYA
          W/O.SRINIVASAN,
          KODAMALOOR HOUSE,
          CHEROOR PO, TRICHUR-8.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
          SRI.ALEX GEORGE CHAMAPPARAYIL
          SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
          SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          TRICHUR 680 003.

    2     THE TAHSILDAR
          TALUK OFFICE, TRICHUR - 680 518.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          KILLANNOOR VILLAGE, TRICHUR 680 518.

    4     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

    5     THE TALUK LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE
          REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TRICHUR 680 518.


          SMT.C.S. SHEEJA, SR.GP.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
                                         3




                                 T.R.RAVI, J.
                       ----------------------------------------
                         WP(C) No.5337 OF 2016
                      -------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022

                               JUDGMENT

Admit.

Petitioners, who are farmers and the legal

representatives of late P.S.Madhavan and late P.S.Raghavan

claim to be in possession of about 5 acres of Government land

for over 60 years. It is stated that the entire area is planted

with rubber. Application for assignment of land had been

submitted for which a site inspection was conducted in 2004

and the Village Officer recommended assignment of land in

favour of the petitioners. The report of the Village Officer in

2004 itself stated that the petitioners were in possession for

over 45 years. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners

died and the petitioners had partitioned the properties among

themselves and applied for assignment of 48 cents of land to

each of them. By Ext.P3, the assignment committee

recommended grant of assignment in favour of petitioners 4, 5, WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016

8, 10 and 11 but rejected the same in the case of petitioners 1,

2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. The petitioners have a grievance that they

were not given an opportunity to explain their position prior to

the rejection of the applications. It is further submitted that

even though by Ext.P3, recommendations were made, no

further steps were taken either to grant the 'patta' in favour of

the persons to whom it is favorably recommended or to reject

the petitions where there was no favorable recommendation

for assignment. Even though this Court had directed

production of the orders of rejection, what is produced is only

the copy of the minutes of the meeting which has already been

produced as Ext.P3 along with the writ petition. Ext.P3 is only

the recommendations by the committee and it does not show if

there has been any rejection. The Government Pleader on

instructions submitted that by Ext.P4 the persons whose

applications were rejected, were informed about the decision.

The petitioners have a case that Ext.P4 was never served on

them and it was obtained by them by filing application under

Right to Information Act. There is no serious dispute regarding

the fact that the petitioners were not heard before their

applications were rejected. The fact remains that the WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016

petitioners and their predecessors were in possession of the

lands for the past almost 60 years. In such circumstances,

their rights could not have been decided in the manner in

which it is seen to have been decided in Ext.P3. The

petitioners are necessarily entitled to a fair treatment and

their case ought to have been considered after hearing them.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

with the following directions;

i) Ext.P3 in so far as it declines the request for patta by

the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9, is quashed. The 5 th

respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioners

1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 after notice to the petitioners.

ii) There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to

consider the recommendation in favour of the

petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 contained in Ext.P3 and

take further steps for the issuance of patta to

petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 at the earliest at any

rate within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

iii) The 5th respondent while considering the claims of

petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 shall bear in mind the WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016

fact that they are also claiming similar rights as that

of petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 to which they had

succeeded as legal representatives of deceased

P.S.Madhavan and P.S.Raghavan.

iv) Necessary orders shall be issued by the 5 th respondent

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioners 1, 2,

3, 6, 7 and 9 shall be put on notice before a decision is

taken by the 5th respondent.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5337/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.12.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY LATE P.S.RAGHAVAN

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITONER ON 13.10.2014

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 19.6.2014 OF THE LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.6.15 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.6.15 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE